Even Charles Darwin wouldn't believe we could be so dumb

As to talk about the Kiribati islands,  as if the sea level is rising on them .( as ABC TV did after 9pm on 9th October 2011)  when SUBSIDENCE is what makes them what they are. 
After all Charles Darwin ,  did the initial research on atolls over 150 years ago and it still stands today . The PC correct junkies at the ABC know better of course.
This week in parliament( with its grand ambition of changing the world with yet another tax)  ,  like this new week at the ABC,  is built on a lie.
 The tax is--- for what purpose and
---what will it achieve


except more innovative chair moving in the halls of the growing government and the media hype industries?
Only fair to warn you , as a earth scientist , that the the biggest landslides we know of occur off these atolls , with the movement often not stopping till kilometres below the surface . The highest coastal cliffs in the world are formed this way ( Hawaiian Island) Charles Darwin, who discovered the mechanism of atol formation over 150 years ago , would , I feel sure, not believe our age could be so filled with such ignorance and arrogance.The island is Kiribiti's ocean island -only about 3 kilometres wide , a few metres high and sea as deep as 3 kilometres all around it

Carbon overview suggests we know little

We certainly aren't told enough ; Our pollies rant and rave about my area of expertise in sequestration in a  manner akin to excited schoolboys playing with gunpowder.  The earth too is more resilient than the MAIN worry warriors would have us believe  ( what would they know really?) . The graph below comes from IPCC and shows the huge volumes of carbon that are captured each year by photosynthesis (450 for land ). It also shows how some form of equilibrium is established in spite of 29 . As the concentration  of carbon dioxide is rate limiting for terrestrial photosynthesis  , the case for increased sequestration by plants and structures  must be better stated before we tax ourselves silly.  Let alone the case for sequestration and use from water bodies (338) R ememember YOU heard it first HERE see earlier posts copyright Emperors academy .

More about emotion than reason?

In an age of reason , we all like to think ourselves very reasonable indeed. However the evidence is against us at a public level as they say (Scientists talk about drivers or equations )when you look at what's driving public debate in march 2011 ( Carbon tax for eg in Australia but also responses to recent disasters ) .  Tell me I am wrong
 Emotion is in the drivers seat.  

 How then can we claim that the strange amalgum of opinion that is the public's is reasonable . We know many of us feel guilty about say , " driving around in heavy machines "( our cars )  so we tend to project the problem onto someone else ( "the government must do something"  )
Why trust such reasoning ?
There is also the persistent myth in secular circles that mere technology (reason) will solve all risk problems .We need a technology to manage humans?  - Some leaders call the technology " a tax"  .
But who drives the use of the tax ? Would you trust either of them  (government or the market?) We have humans in charge - is there really then a way forward? 

Why are so many people in a state of fear ?

Sometimes it seems that the only lasting legacy of the green movement will be to create a sense of fear .
fears  that finally prove pointless .
After all we do need to be careful - but the media and many of the old cynics  around seem to feed on it . What do you think ?
If young people were looking for hope , there is some amongst even the worst real disasters of the year 2010/11.
The panic about water has been doused by immense amounts o water to restore Australia and
 A meltdown in a nuclear reactor in J pans worst case scenario risk situation (emergency  water supply also cut off) isn't expected  to spread waste  very far - so why should we be in too great a panic about well managed reactors .?
Why do we let the media worry young people to the point of panic and inertia ? Julia Gillard has identified the problem but is she too guilty as charged ?

What if carbon oxides are huge buffering agents

You mean they aren't ? Not according to our polys - "who belives polys esp the  ones who talk market but distrust business ?"? The media seem to - strange allegiance - how long can it last ?
As for the basic chemistry controls ( there are a few others but here is one )
While the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere remains the rate limiting factor for photosynthesis, and nearly every leaf on the planet provides evidence of that , I see no reason to worry too much about the very low levels of carbon dioxide  in the atmosphere.
Even Lomborg may have to get used to the idea that his welcome focus on the real issue of alternative energy sources ( rather than Co2) is publicly to lose its biggest driver . 
The eco point is that no civilization will survive change if it mistakenly perceives a threat let alone quickfixes it ( as he is saying most so called responsive governments have done in the last  20 years ) The true focus of all effective sustainability action is that it anticipates the truth - and is not distracted by quickfiz